




Qass. 



/F 6 6 <^' 



Book ij. ■^' 






PRESIDENT OF THE LINITED STATES, 






UhlTL'KXlXG 



TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



A Ull.L KNTITI.ED 



AX ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE 3I0RE EFFICIENT GOVERN- 
MENT OF THE REBEL STATES." 



W ASHING T N 
1867. 






JUN 28 19IU 



]VIESSA.aE. 



To THE House of Eepresextatives: 

I have examined the bill "to provide lor the more elRcicnt government 
of the rebel States" with the care and anxiety which its transcendent 
importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent 
for reasons so grave, that I hope a statement of them may have some 
influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom 
the decision must ultimateh' rest. 

The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the 
absolute domination ol' militaiy rulers; and the preamble undertakes to 
give the reason upon which the measure is based, and the ground upon 
which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those States no legal 
Governments, and no adequate protection for life or property, and asserts 
the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits. Is 
this true as matter of fact? 

It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual 
Government, with all the powers, executive, judicial, and legislative, 
which properly belong to a free State. They are organized like the 
other States of the Union, and, like them, the}' make, administer, and exe- 
cute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. An existing de facto 
Government, exercising such functions as these, is itself the law of the 
State upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce the supreme 
law-making power of an established State illegal, is to say that law itself 
is unlawful. 

The provisions which these Governnients have made for the preserva- 
tion of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private inju- 
ries, are in substance and principle the same as those which prevail in 
the Northern States and in other civilized countries. They certainly 
have not succeeded in preventing the commission of all crime, nor has 
this been accomplished anywhere in the world. There, as well as else- 
where, offenders sometimes escape for want of vigorous prosecution, and 
occasionall}', perhaps, by the inefficiency of courts or the prejudice of 
jurors. It is undoubtedly true that these evils have been much increased 
and aggravated, North and South, by the demoralizing influences of civil 
war, and by the rancorous passions which the contest has engendered. 



But that these people are maintaining local Governments for themselves 
which habitually defeat the object of all government and render their 
own lives and property insecure, is in itself utterly improbable, and the 
averment of the bill to that effect is not supported b}- any evidence which 
has come to my knowledge. All the information I have on the subject 
convinces me that the masses of the Southern people and those who con- 
trol their public acts, while they entertain diverse opinions on questions 
of Federal policy, are completely united in the effort to reorganize their 
society on the basis of peace, and to restore their mutual jDrosperity as 
rapidly and as completely as their circumstances will j^ermit. 

The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the esta- 
blishment of peace and goodorder is not its real object. The fifth section 
declares that the preceding sections shall cease to operate in any State 
where certain events shall have happened. These events are — First, the 
selection of delegates to a State Convention by an election at which 
negroes shall be allowed to vote. Second, the formation of a State Con- 
stitution by the Convention so chosen. Third, the insertion into the 
State Constitution of a provision which will secure the right of voting at 
all elections to negroes, and to such white men as ma}' not be disfranchised 
for rebellion or fclonj'. Fourth, the submission of the Constitution for 
ratification to negroes and white men not disfranchised, and its actual 
ratification by their vote. Fifth, the submission of the State Constitu- 
tion to Congress for examination and approval, and the actual approval 
of it bj^ that body. Sixth, the adoption of a certain amendment to the 
Federal Constitution by a vote of the Legislature elected under the new 
Constitution. Seventh, the adoption of said amendment by a sufficient 
number of other States to make it a part of the Constitution of the 
United States. All these conditions must be fulfilled before the people of 
any of these States can be relieved from the bondage of military domin- 
ation ; but when they are fulfilled, then immediately the pains and pen- 
alties of the bill are to cease, no matter whether there be peace and order 
or not, and without any reference to the security of life or property. 
The excuse given for the bill in the preamble is admitted by the bill 
itself not to be real. The militaiy rule which it establishes is plainly to 
be used — not for any purpose of order or for the i)revention of crime, but 
solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles 
and measures to which it is known that lliey are opposed, and upon 
which they have an iin(leiii:iI)lo right to exercise their own judgment. 

I submit to Coniiress whether this measure is not. in its whole charac- 
ter, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority, in pal- 



pablo conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and 
utterly destructive to those great principles of libert}- and humanity for 
which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much 
blood and expended so much treasure. 

The ten States named in the bill are divided into five districts. 
For each district an oflicer of the army, not below the rank of brigadier 
general, is to be appointed to rule over the people ; and he is to be sup- 
ported with an efficient military force to enable him to perform his duties 
and enforce his authority. Those duties and that authority, as defined 
by the third section of the bill, are, "to protect all persons in their rights 
of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, 
and to punish or cause to be punished all disturbers of the public peace 
or criminals." The power thus given to the commanding oflicer over 
all the people of each district is that of an absolute monarch. His mere 
will is to take the place of all law. The law of the States is now the 
only rule applicable to the subjects placed under his control, and that is 
completely displaced by the clause which declares all interference of 
State authority to be null and void. He alone is permitted to determine 
what are rights of person or property, and he may protect them in such 
way as in his discretion may seem proper. It places at his free disposal all 
the lands and goods in his district, and he may distribute them without let 
or hindrance to whom he pleases. Being bound by no State law, and 
there being no other law to regulate the subject, he may make a criminal 
code of his own; and he can make it as bloody as any recorded in history, 
or he can reserve the privilege of acting upon the impulse of his private 
passions in each case that arises. He is bound by no rules of evidence: 
there is indeed no provision by which he is authorized or required to 
take an}' evidence at all. Everything is a crime which he chooses to 
call so, and all persons arc condemned whom he pronounces to be guilty.' 
He is not bound to keep an}' record, or make any report of his proceed- 
ings. He may arrest his victims wherever he finds them, without war- 
rant, accusation or proof of probable cause. If he gives them a trial before 
he inflicts the punishment, he gives it of his grace and mercy, not be- 
cause he is commanded so to do. 

To a casual reader of the bill, it might seem that some kind of trial 
was secured by it to persons accused of crime ; but such is not the case. 
The officer "may allow local civil tribunals to try offenders," but of 
course this does not require that he shall do so. If any State or Federal 
court presumes to exercise its legal jurisdiction by the trial of a malefac- 
tor without his special permission, he can break it up, and punish the 



6 

judges and jurors as being themselves malefactors. He can save his 
friends from justice, and despoil his enemies contrarj^ to justice. 

It is also provided that "he shall have power to organize military com- 
missions or tribunals;" but this power he is not commanded to exei'cise. 
It is merel}' permissive, and is to be used only " when in his judgment it 
may be necessary for the trial of offenders." Even if the sentence of a 
commission were made a prerequisite to the punishment of a party, it 
would be scarcely the slightest check upon the officer, who has authorit}" 
to organize it as he pleases, prescribe its mode of proceeding, appoint its 
members from among his own subordinates, and revise all its decisions. 
Instead of mitigating the har.shuess of his single rule, such a tribunal 
would be used much more probably to divide therespoiisibility of making- 
it more cruel and unjust. 

Several provisions, dictated b}- the humanity of Congress, have been 
inserted in the bill, apparently to restrain the power of the commanding- 
officer; but it seems to mo that they are of no avail for that purpose. 
The fourth section provides — First. That trials shall not be unnecessarily 
delayed; but I think I have shown that the power is given to punish 
without trial, and if so, this provision is practically inoperative. Second. 
Cruel or unusual punishment is not to be inflicted; but who is to decide 
what is cruel and Avhat is unusual? The words have acquired a legal 
meaning by long use in the courts. Can it be expected that military 
officei's will understand or follow a rule expressed in language so purely 
technical, and not pertaining in the least degree to their profession ? If 
not, then each officer ma}" define cruelty according to his own temjier, 
and if it is not usual, he will make it usual. Corporal punishment, im- 
prisonment, the gag, the ball and chain, and the almost insupportable 
forms of torture invented for military punishment, lie within the range 
of choice. Third. The sentence of a commission is not to be executed 
without being approved by the commander, if it aftects life or liberty, 
and a sentence of death must be approved by the President. This applies 
to cases in which there has been a trial and sentence. I take it to be 
clear, under this bill, that the military commander may condemn to death 
without even the form of a trial by a military commission, so that the life 
of the condemned may depend upon the will of two men, instead of one. 

It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts 
to absolute despotism. JJut, to make it still more unendurable, the bill 
provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses 
to appoint; for it declares tliat he shall "punish or cause to be pun- 
ished." Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England 



for more than five hundred years. In all that time no j^eople who speak 
the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole 
population of the ten States — all persons, of every color, sex, and condi- 
tion, and ever}' stranger within their limits — to the most abject and de- 
grading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over his 
slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and 
colored persons. 

It may betanswered to this that the officers of the army are too magnani- 
mous, just, and humane to oppress and trample upon a subjugated people. 
I do not doubt that army officers are as avcII entitled to this kind of con- 
fidence as any other class of men. But the histor}' of the world has been 
written in vain, if it does not teach us that unrestrained authorit}' can 
never be safely trusted in human hands. It is almost sure to be more or 
less abused under any circumstances, and it has always resulted in gross 
tyranny where the rulers who exercise it are strangers to their subjects, 
and come among them as the representatives of a distant power, and 
more especially when the power that sends them is unfriendly. Govern- 
ments closely resembling that here proposed have been fairly tried in 
Hungary and Poland, and the suffering endured by those people roused 
the sympathies of the entire world. It was tried in Ireland, and, though 
tempered at first by principles of English Uiav, it gave birth to cruelties 
so atrocious that they are never recounted without just indignation. The 
French Convention armed its deputies with this power, and sent them 
to the Southern departments of the Eepublic. The massacres, murders, 
and other atrocities which the}' committed show what the passions of 
the ablest men in the most civilized society will tempt them to do when 
wholly unrestrained by law. 

The men of our race in every age have struggled to tie up the hands 
of their (rovcrnmcnts and keep them within the law; because their own 
experience of all mankind taught them that rulers could not be relied on 
to concede those rights which they were not legally bound to respect. 
The head of a great empire has sometimes governed it with a mild and 
paternal swaj' ; but the kindness of an irresponsible deputy never yields 
what the law does not extort from him. Between such a master and the 
people subjected to his domination there can be nothing but enmity; he 
punishes them if they resist his authority, and, if the}' submit to it, he 
hates them for their servility. 

I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more imjiortant. 
Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like 
this? I answer, certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Con- 
stitution, and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes. 



8 

This proposition is perfectly clear — that no branch of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just powers, 
except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic 
law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution, we have no legal author- 
ity more than private citizens, and within it we have onl}' so much as 
that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions, 
and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States 
which are within the Union, but it shields every human being who comes 
or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one 
place, more than in another, that which the Constitution says we shall not 
do at all. If. therefore, the Southern States were in truth out of the 
Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the fundamental 
law forbids. 

Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing 
the opposition which was made in some of the States to the execu- 
tion of the Federal laws, reduced those States and all their people— 
the innocent as well as the guilty— to the condition of vassalage, and gave 
us a power over them which the Constitution does not bestow, or define, oi- 
limit. Xo fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories sub- 
jected the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary 
despotism. When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, 
he may deal with them according to his pleasure, because he had that 
power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrec- 
tion, he must still govern according to law. It^ an insurrection should 
take place in one of our States against the authority of the State Gov- 
ernment, and end in the overthrow of those who planned it, would that 
take away the rights of all the people of tlie counties where it was 
favored by a part or a majority of the population? Could they, for such 
a reason, be wholly outlawed and deprived of tlieir representation in the 
Leo-islature? I have alwavs contended that the Government of the 
United States was sovereign within its constitutional sphere; that 
it executed its laws, like the States themselves, by applying its 
coercive power directly to individuals; and that it could put down 
insurrection with Ihe same effect as a State, and no other. The 
opposite doctrine is the worst heresy of tho.se who advocated secession, 
and cannot be agreed to without admitting that heresy to be ri|ht. 

invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and domestic violence were anticipated 
when the Government was framed, and the means of repelling and sup- 
])ressing them were wisely provided for in the Constitution; but it was 
not thcnight nece.'^sary to declare that the States in which they might 



9 

occur should be expelled from the Union. EebcUious, which were inva- 
riably suppressed, occurred prior to that out of •which these questions 
grow; but the States continued to exist and the Union remained un- 
broken. In Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Ehode Island, and in 
New York, at different periods in our history, violent and armed opposi- 
tion to the United States was carried on; but the relations of those 
vStates with the Federal Government were not supposed to be interrupted 
or changed thereby, after the rebellious portions of their population were 
defeated and put down. It is true that in these earlier cases there M'as 
no formal expression of a determination to withdraw from the Union, 
but it is also true that in the Southern States the ordinances of secession 
were treated by all the friends of the Union as mere nullities, and are 
now acknowledged to be so by the States themselves. If we admit that 
the}" had any force or validity, or that they did in fact take the States 
in which they were passed out of the Union, we sweep fi'om under our 
feet all the grounds upon which we stand in justifying the use of Federal 
force to maintain the integrit}' of the Government. 

This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in 
any one of the States brought under its oj)eration either war or insurrec- 
tion. The laws of the States and of the Federal Government are all in 
undisturbed and harmonious operation. The courts. State and Federal, 
are open, and in the fall exercise of their proper authority. Over every 
State comprised in these five military districts, life, liberty, and property 
are secured by State laws and Federal laws, and the National Constitu- 
tion is ever3-where in force and everyw^here obeyed. What, then, is the 
ground on which this bill proceeds? The title of the bill announces that 
it is intended "for the more efficient government" of these ten States. 
It is recited by way of preamble that no legal State Governments, "nor 
adequate protection for life or property," exist in those States, and that 
peace and good order should be thus enforced. The first thing which ar- 
rests attention upon these recitals, which prepare the w\ay for martial 
law, is this — that the only foundation upon which martial law can exist 
under our form of government is not stated or so much as pretended. 
Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection — none of these ap- 
pear; and none of these in fact exist. It is not even recited that any 
sort of war or insurrection is threatened. Let us pause here to consider, 
upon this question of constitutional law and the power of Congress, a 
recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in ex 'parte 
Milligan. 

I will first quote from the opinion of the majority of the Court: 
"Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity 
2 



10 

must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes 
the courts and deposes the civil administration." We see that martial 
law comes in only when actual war closes the courts and deposes the civil 
authority; but this bill, in time of peace, makes martial law operate as 
though we were in actual war, and become the cause, instead of the con- 
sequence of the abrogation of civil authority. One more quotation: "It 
follows from Avhat has been said on this subject that there are occasions 
when martial law can be properly applied. If in foreign invasion or civil 
war the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer 
criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military 
operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a 
substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety 
of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is 
allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free 
course." 

I now quote from the opinion of the minority of the Court, delivered 
by Chief Justice Chase : " We by no means assert that Congress can estab- 
lish and apply the laws of war where no war has been declared or exists. 
Where peace exists, the laws of peace must prevail." This is sufficiently 
explicit. Peace exists in all the territory to which this bill applies. It 
asserts a power in Congress, in time of peace, to set aside the laws of 
peace and to substitute the laws of war. The minority, concurring with 
the majority, declares that Congress does not possess that power. Again^ 
and, if possible, more emphatically, the Chief Justice, with remarkable 
clearness and condensation, sums up the whole matter as follows : 

" There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction— one to bo exer- 
cised both in peace and war; another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the 
boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within States or dis- 
tricts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents; and a third to be exercised in time of 
invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United States, or during rebellion within 
the limits of the States maintaining adhesion to the National Government, when the public 
danger requires its exercise. The first of these may be called jurisdiction under Mujtaky 
Law, and is found in acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of war, or otherwise 
providing for the government of the national forces ; the second may be distinguished as 
Mn.rrAKY Govi;i:xmi:nt, superseding, as far as may be deemed expedient, the local law, 
and exercised by the military commander under the direction of the President, with the 
express or implied sanction of Congress ; while tiie third may be denominated Mautiai, Law 
PkoI'KR, and is called into action by Congress, or temporarily, when the action of Congress 
cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the President, in 
times of insurrection or invasion or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities 
where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights."' 

It will be observed that of the three kinds of militar}' jurisdiction which 
can be exercised or created under our Constitution, there is but one that 
can prevail in time of peace, and that is the code of laws enacted by Con- 



11 

gress for the government of the national forces. That body of military 
law has no application to the citizen, nor even to the citizen soldier en- 
rolled in the militia in time of peace. But this bill is not a part of that 
sort of military law, for that applies only to the soldier and not to the 
citizen, whilst, contrariwise, the militar}" law provided by this bill applies 
only to the citizen and not to the soldier. 

I need not say to the Eepresentatives of the American people that 
their Constitution forbids the exercise of judicial power in any way but 
one — that is by the ordained and established courts. It is equally well 
known that in all criminal cases a trial by jur}- is made indispensable by 
the express words of that instrument. I will not enlarge on the inesti- 
mable value of the right thus secured to every freeman, or speak of the 
danger to public libert}' in all parts of the country which must ensue 
from a denial of it anywhere or upon any pretence. A very recent de- 
cision of the Supreme Court has traced the history, vindicated the dig- 
nity, and made known the value of this great privilege so clearly that 
nothing more is needed. To what extent a violation of it might be ex- 
cused in time of war or public danger may admit of discussion, but we 
are providing now for a time of profound peace, where there is not an 
armed soldier within our borders except those who are in the service of 
the Government. It is in such a condition of things that an act of Con- 
gress is proposed which, if carried out, would deny a trial by the lawful 
courts and juries to nine millions of American citizens, and to their pos- 
terit}' for an indefinite period. It seems to be scarcely possible that any 
one should seriously believe this consistent with a Constitution which 
declares, in simple, plain, and unambiguous language, that all persons 
shall have that right, and that no person shall ever in any case be de- 
prived of it. The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen 
without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill author- 
izes an arrest without warrant, at the pleasure of a militaiy commander. 
The Constitution declares that "no person shall be held to answer for a 
capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment by a grand 
jury." This bill holds every person, not a soldier, answerable for all 
crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution de- 
clares that '-no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with- 
out due process of law." This bill sets aside all process of law, and 
makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to the will of 
one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally, the Constitution de- 
clares that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus- 
pended unless w^hen, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety 
may require it;" whereas this bill declares martial law (which of itself 



12 

suspends this great Avrit) in time of peace, and authorizes the military to 
make the arrest, and gives to the prisoner on!}' one privilege, and that is 
atrial "without unnecessar}^ delay." He has no hoi:)e of release from 
custody, except the hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a 
military commission. 

The United States are bound to guai-antee to each State a republican 
form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not pal- 
pably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away 
every vestige of republican government in ten States, and puts the life, 
property, liberty, and honor of all the people in each of them under the 
domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority? 

The Parliament of England, exercising the omnipotent power which 
it claimed, was accustomed to pass bills of attainder; that is to say, it 
would convict men of treason and other crimes by legislative enactment. 
The person accused had a hearing, sometimes a patient and fair one; but 
generally party prejudice prevailed, instead of justice. It often became ne- 
cessary for Parliament to acknowledge its error and reverse its own action. 
The fathers of our country determined that no such thing should occur 
hei-e. They withheld the power from Congress, and thus forbade its ex- 
ercise by that body; and they provided in the Constitution that no State 
should pass any bill of attainder. It is, therefore, impossible for any 
person in this country to be constitutionall}' convicted or punished for 
any crime by a legislative proceeding of any sort. Nevertheless, here is 
a bill of attainder against nine millions of people at once. It is based 
upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcch* intelligible, and found to 
be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the nine millions was 
heard in his own defence. The representatives of the doomed parties 
were excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to 
be followed bj- the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large 
masses of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands, and 
degrades them all — even those who are admilUd to be guiltless — from the 
rank of freemen to the condition of slaves. 

The purpose and object of the bill — the general intent wliieli pervades 
it from beginning to end — is to change the entire structure and character 
of the State Governments, and to compel them by force to the adoption 
of organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept, if 
left to themselves. The negroes have not asked lor the privilege of 
voting — the vast majority of them have no idea what it means. This bill 
not only thrusts it into their hands, but compels them, as well as the 
whites, to use it in a particular way. If they do not form a Constitu- 
tion with ])rescribcd articles in it, and afterwards elect a Legislature 



13 

-which will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way, neither blacks 
nor whites can be relieved from the slavery which the bill imposes upon 
them. Without pausing here to consider the policy or impolicy of Afri- 
canizing the Southern part of our territory, I would simpl}' ask the at- 
tention of Congress to that manifest, well-known, and universally' 
acknowledged rule of constitutional law, which declares that the Federal 
Government has no jurisdiction, authority, or power to regulate such 
subjects for any State. To force the right of suffrage out of the hands 
of the white people and into the hands of the negroes is an arbitrary 
violation of this principle. 

This bill imposes martial law at once, and its operations will begin so 
soon as the General and his troops can be put in place. The dread alter- 
native between its harsh rule and compliance with the terms of this 
measure is not suspended, nor are the people afforded any time for free 
deliberation. The bill says to them, take martial law first, then deliber- 
ate. And when they have done all that this measure requires them to 
do, other conditions and contingencies, over which they have no control, 
yet remain to be fulfilled before they can be relieved from martial law. 
Another Congress must first approve the Constitutions made in con- 
formity with the will of this Congress, and must declare these States 
entitled to representation in both Houses. The whole question thus 
remains open and unsettled, and must again occup}' the attention of Con- 
gress, and in the meantime the agitation \vhich now prevails will con- 
tinue to disturb all portions of the people. 

The bill also denies the legality of the Governments of ten of the 
States which participated in the ratification of the amendment to the 
Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the jurisdiction of 
the United States, and practically excludes them from the Union. If 
this assumption of the bill be correct, their concurrence cannot be con- 
sidered as having been legally given, and the important fact is made to 
apj)earthat the consent of three-fourths of the States — the requisite num- 
ber — has not been constitutionally obtained to the ratification of that 
amendment, thus leaving the question of slavery where it stood before 
the amendment was oflBcially declared to have become a part of the Con- 
stitution. 

That the measure proposed by this bill does violate the Constitution in 
the particulars mentioned, and in many other ways which I forbear to 
enumerate, is too clear to admit of the least doubt. It onl}- remains to 
consider whether the injunctions of that instrument ought to be obeyed 
or not. I think they ought to be obeyed, for reasons which I will pro- 
ceed to give as briefly as possible. 



14 

In the first place, it is the only sj'stem of free government which we 
can hope to have as a nation. When it ceases to be the rule of our con- 
duct, we may perhaps take our choice between comj)lete anarchy, a con- 
solidated despotism, and a total dissolution of the Union ; but national 
liberty, regulated by law, Avill have passed beyond our reach. 

It is the best frame of government the world ever saw. Xo other is 
or can be so well adapted to the genius, habits, or wants of the American 
people. Combining 'the strength of a great empire Avith unspeakable 
blessings of local self-government — having a central power to defend 
the general interests, and recognizing the authority of the States as 
the guardians of industrial rights, it is "the sheet-anchor of our safety 
abroad and our peace at home." It was ordained " to form a more per- 
fect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the 
general welfare, provide for the common defence, and secure the blessings 
of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." These great ends have 
been attained heretofore, and will be again, by faithful obedience to it, 
but they are certain to be lost if we treat with disregard its sacred obli- 
gations. 

It was to punish the gross crime of defying the Constitution, and to 
vindicate its supreme authority, that we carried on a bloody war of four 
years' duration. Shall we now acknowledge that we sacrificed a million 
of lives and expended billions of treasure to enforce a Constitution which 
is not worthy of respect and preservation? 

Those who advocated the right of secession alleged in their own justifica- 
tion that we had no regard for law, and that their rights of property', life, 
and liberty would not be safe under the Constitution, as administered by us. 
If we now verify their assertion, we prove that they were in truth and in 
fact fighting for their liberty, and instead of branding their leaders with 
the dishonoring: name of traitors acrainst a righteous and le<ral Government, 
we elevate them in history to the rank of self-sacrificing patriots, con- 
secrate them to the admiration of the world, and place them by the 
side of "Washington, Hampden, and Sydney. No, let us leave them to 
the infamy they deserve, punish them as they should be punished, accord- 
ing to law, and take upon ourselves no share of the odium which they 
should bear alone. 

It is a part of our public history which can never be forgotten that 
both Houses of Congress in July, 18G1, declared in the form of a solemn 
resolution that the war was and should be carried on for no purpose of 
subjugation, but solely to enforce the Constitution and laws; and that 
when this was yielded by the parties in rebellion, the contest should 
cease, with the constitutional rights of the States and of individuals un- 



16 

impaired. This resolution was adopted and sent forth to the world unani- 
mously by the Senate, and with only two dissenting voices in the House. 
It was accepted b}^ the friends of the Union in the South, as well as 
in the North, as expressing honestly and truly the object of the war. 
On the faith of it, many thousands of persons in both sections gave their 
lives and their fortunes to the cause. To repudiate it now by refusing to 
the States and to the individuals within them the rights which the Con- 
stitution and laws of the Union would secure to them, is a breach of our 
plighted honor for which I can imagine no excuse, and to Avhieli I cannot 
voluntarily become a party. 

The evils which spring from the unsettled state oi' our Government will 
be acknowledged by all. Commercial intercourse is impeded, capital is in 
constant peril, public secui'ities fluctuate in value, peace itself is not secure, 
and the sense of moral and political duty is impaired. To avert these calam- 
ities from our country, it is imperatively required that we should imme- 
diately decide upon some course of administration which can be stead- 
fastly adhered to. I am thoroughly convinced that any settlement, or 
compi'omise, or plan of action which is inconsistent with the principles 
of the Constitution will not only be unavailing, but mischievous ; that it 
will but multiply the present evils, instead of removing them. The Con- 
stitution, in its whole integrity and vigor, throughout the length and 
breadth of the land, is the best of all compromises. Besides, our duty 
does not, in my judgment, leave us a choice between that and any other. 
I believe that it contains the remedy that is so much needed, and that if 
the co-ordinate branches of the GJovernment would unite ujion its pro- 
visions, they would be found broad enough and strong enough to sustain 
in time of peace the nation which the}' bore safely through the ordeal of 
a protracted civil war. Among the most sacred guaranties of that in- 
strument are those which declare that " each State shall have at least 
one Eepresentative," and that "no State, without its consent, shall be 
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Each Ilouse is made 
the "judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own 
members," and may, "with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a mem- 
ber." Thus, as heretofore urged, "in the admission of Senators and Ivcp- 
resentatives from any and all of the States, there can be no just ground 
of apprehension that persons who are disloj'al will be clothed with the 
powei's of legislation; for this could not happen when the Constitution 
and the laws are enforced b}' a vigilant and faithful Congress." "AYhen 
a Senator or Eepresentative presents his certificate of election, he may at 
once be admitted or rejected; or, should there be any question as to his 
eligibility, his credentials may be referred for investigation to the appro- 



16 

priate committee. If admitted to a seat, it must be upon evidence satis- 
factory to the House of which he thus becomes a member, that he pos- 
sesses the requisite constitutional and legal qualifications. If refused 
admission as a member for want of due allegiance to the Government, 
and returned to his constituents, they are admonished that none but 
persons loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice in the Legisla- 
tive Councils of the Nation, and the political power and moral influence 
of Congress are thus effectively exerted in the interests of loj'alty to the 
Government and fidelity to the Union." And is it not far better that the 
work of restoration should be accomplished by simple compliance with 
the plain requirements of the Constitution, than by a recourse to meas- 
ures which in eftect destroy the States, and threaten the subversion of 
the General Government? All that is necessary to settle this simple but 
important question, without further agitation or delay, is a willingness 
on the part of all to sustain the Constitution and carry its provisions into 
practical operation. If to-morrow cither branch of Congress would de- 
clare that, upon the presentation of their credentials, members constitu- 
tionally elected and loyal to the General Government would be admitted 
to seats in Congress, while all others would be excluded, and their places 
remain vacant until the selection by the people of loyal and qualified 
persons; and if, at the same time, assurance were given that this policy 
would be continued until all the States were represented in Congress, it 
would send a thrill of joy throughout the entire land, as indicating the 
inauguration of a S3'stem which must speedily bring tranquillity to the 
public mind. 

While we are legislating upon subjects which are of great importance 
to the whole people, and which must affect all parts of the countr}-, not 
only during the life of the present generation, but for ages to come, we 
should remember that all men arc entitled at least to a hearing in the 
councils which decide upon the destiny of themselves and their children. 
At present ten States are denied representation, and when the Fortieth 
Congress assembles on the fourth day of the present month, sixteen States 
will be without a voice in the House of Representatives. This grave 
fact, with the important questions befoi'C us, should induce us to pause in 
a course of legislation which, looking soleh' to the attainment of political 
ends, fails to consider the rights it transgresses, the law which it violates, 
or the institutions which it imperils. 

.VNDKEW JOHNSON. 

Washington, March 2, 18G7. 



lHAg'l2 



-^-f^' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 786 460 5 # 



